The First Official Image From SHERLOCK HOLMES II Changes Everything!

And now we know SHERLOCK HOLMES II contains a scene in which Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO'S Noomi Rapace are nearly blown to bits in a forest. It also appears Downey and Law will suffer minor head injuries - though that could just be a smudge of dirt on Downey's noggin. Hard to tell. We'll just have to wait until December 16, 2011 to find out for sure!
In case you've forgotten, Ms. Rapace will play a French gypsy in the Guy Ritchie-directed sequel. The film will also feature Stephen Fry as Sherlock's older brother Mycroft, and Jared Harris as Holmes's archenemy, Professor James Moriarty. The screenplay is by Kieran and Michele Mulroney (of the Dermot Mulroneys). And I second Devin Faraci's call for a more artful title than SHERLOCK HOLMES II. Should be SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE... WHATEVER-THE-CENTRAL-MYSTERY-OF-THE-FILM-IS.

Gotta go with RayImpastato up there. Looks like Yahoo Serious! Way too contrived and corny. First one was terrible as a Sherlock Holmes movie. No grace, no subtlety, no mystery. Just Hollywood pretending to be British.

Was it faithful to Doyle's version? No, but it was just as faithful if not more so than the Basil Rathbone versions. I saw it as a Pulp fiction version of Holmes, as if he was on an alternate earth which had more action and would same day give birth to Tarzan, Doc Savage, the Shadow, James Bond and Batman. Unlike other literiary characters there is thousands of adaptations of Holmes, so I don't mind a less faithful adaptation.

The Guy Ritchie movie was SURPRISINGLY faithful to the WRITTEN character of Holmes. We had a mystery that was seemingly supernatural, and Holmes used his deductive abilities to solve it. When not on a case, he is dissheveled and doped up. That IS the Holmes written by Doyle. They nailed it.

Like a few other brave souls who've admitted it, I liked the first movie and, being a RDJ fan, I'm sure I'll like this one.<p></p>
In a time when Hollywood churns out live action children shows (in 3D no less)... Yogi & The Smurfs? I mean, really? ... I can appreciate entertaining fluff without counting plotholes or faithfullness to source material (although Guy DID allude to Holmes' drug addiction a few times, which got a smile outta me).<p></p>
If that means I've lowered my standards (as if I had any to begin with) then so be it. <p></p>
I'm sure there's a Ritchie film I did NOT like but I just can't think of one off the top of my head.<p></p>
ps: give the Iron Man II bashing a rest. It's a movie based on a comic for fuck's sake.

I just want to make sure my finger stays firmly pressed against the pulse of the industry; so will someone ... anyone ... please clarify what is REALLY wrong with modern film?<p></p>
According to the various TBs I've read, it's "found footage"; "shaky cam"; "3D"; "CGI"; or "Michael Bay"<p></p>
Wait a tic!!!<p></p>
Does this mean the rumored "Cloverfield II; in 3D; directed by Michael Bay" will mean ... I shudder to say it ... THE APOCALYPSE???!!??<p></p>
*sigh*<p></p>
Sometimes I honestly believe that many TBers are only satisfied when there's something to complain about (and will find something if none exists)

I guess half an hour after Bleeding Cool put this up you grabbed it...I guess that's cool. But what isn't is how you stole the discribions of what's going on. Passing it off as your own idea...FAIL.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/11/23/what-do-we-learn-from-the-first-official-sherlock-holmes-2-image/

No, it was not. Read the stories. BBCs 'Sherlock' is more faithful, despite being modernised and reinterpreted. I did not recognise Sherlock Holmes's character in the Richie version. The comparison to Sexton Blake is well made.

Watch the BBC show SHERLOCK. That's how you do it. And they even set it in modern day England, and it still remains remarkably faithful to the spirit of the printed stories. As an adaptation, it's brillant. And as a show, it kicks ass. And it helps that the actors chosen for the roles are perfect. Martin Freeman as Dr Watson is great and a very sympathetic screen presence, and the awesomely named Benedict Cumberbatch nails Sherlock Holmes in a way that he just might euqal the awesomely Jeremy Brett's take, and that is the highest compliment i can ever give to an actor that plays Holmes.<br><br>Really, if you want to see a modern take on Holmes, watch SHERLOCK. That show is pure quality ass-kicking.

I think the idea of Moriarty in the SHERLOCK series was to make him totally hateful. Which they suceed admirably, and you might just have gave the show and the presentation of the character the greatest compliment. Your reaction migth just be the exact reaction the producers of the show wanted for you to have. You are supposed to dislike Moriarty, you know? He's not supposed to be cool, he's supposed to be hateful.

was amazing! An updated re-imaging set in modern London with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Great stuff, kudos Mr. Moffat and Mr. Gatiss!
I quite enjoyed the first movie tho. It'll be interesting to see what Stephen Fry makes of Mycroft!

Both are entertaining Sherlock Holmes projects for different reasons. Each has their strengths and flaws, but they each bring something to the table and have succeeded in introducing Sherlock Holmes to a new generation of fans. THIS IS A GOOD THING, PEOPLE.

I liked the fight scenes how Sherloc broke it down how he was goin to take down his opponet it slow motion then show it in reg speed..Its been a VERY long time since I picked up a sherlock novel..very long but one of the things that I picked up was that he was a solid fighter and could use his cane/stick or whatever u call it..but I dont remember seeing that aspect of him in the old movies..just like the same way I never saw Spidermans witty remarks in the Sam Raimi movies and other trademarks of various characters I either didnt see or barely saw in thier cinematic counterparts.

Because the first was profitable and (some) people liked it. Thought that was kind of obvious.
<p>I'm with SpyGuy. While BBC's Sherlock is better (and a TV show, so we get more), I also enjoyed RDJ's Sherlock Holmes for completely different reasons. The moping, the sarcastic remarks (which you did have to listen closely to catch, that was the point), all fit nicely with the novels (though to be fair I've only read about half of them all). More explosions and action, yes, but that was all good fun, and it is Hollywood after all.

Isn't perfect -- it's rocky from episode to episode and Moriarty comes off as just another Joker wannabe performance(though he ends up only reminding me of that guy from Big Bang Theory. I was seriously waiting for him to say Bazinga). I just might see this movie, as Jared Harris could really kick ass as M.

It's the best translation of the characters I've seen in, well, ever; I watched the whole series three times, which is really saying something. The good far outweighs the bad, but it does make the bad all the more glaringly noticeable.

...because they've actually read the orginal stories, agree that the RDJ's and Jude Law's performances were spot on. Let's hope the deer-stalker topped Holmes retreats into the dark recesses of hollywood history where it belongs and we get to once again see the man of action as he was originally conceived, along with the formidable Dr Watson. Last year's movie had some problems but they weren't due to the actors or their portrayal. I'd like to see a director's cut so that the story is fleshed out a bit more. This next effort will likewise bring to the screen the kind of heroics-in-action we who are fans of the original Conan-Doyle stories are eager to see. Also, the recreation of old London was a visual treat. Wish the'd somehow bring Neal Stephenson's "Baroque Cycle" to the screen as well.

Yes, RDJ was hard to understand.<p>
Yes, SHERLOCK on a fraction of the budget pwned the Ritchie movie.<p>
Yes, SHERLOCK HOLMES II is a dumb title.<p>
No, i'm not going to see it.<p>
(who am I kidding... I'll give it a rental some time)

This Sherlock Holmes is for knuckle dragging popcorn film lovers, no Sherlock Holmes fans. Holmes is a tall, well dressed Englishman not a short, shabby dressed mummbling American! Sherlock Holmes is a master boxer and Japanese wrestling fighter not a gypsy kung fu artist! Holmes is a drug taking, crime and puzzle solving obsessive, not some love struck fool who feels the need to have a bare-knuckle fight to occupy his boredom! The first film had the perfect guy for playing Sherlock Holmes and wasted him by making him play the villain instead, yes MARK STRONG! These movies are for idiots who just want another literary character redressed as an A-typical American action movie rather than anything too cerebral so as to make a quick buck delivering the usual fights, explosions and silly one-liner jokes that they use as a formula to dumb down everything these days to idiot-crowd level! Just look at JJ Abrams Star Trek for another example. I fear deeply for the remake of the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movie remakes and how they'll become yet another formulaic, brain dead, Yank-fest spectacle!

I'm not a purist. I've always enjoyed Sherlock Holmes in literature. As for the movies.. Basil Rathbone certainly was Sherlock Holmes.. But I recall Roger Moore playing the role too. I actually enjoyed Matt Frewer's take on the character as well. Now BBC has a new Sherlock, molded from the old, into today's world. Is it good? Yep. Was Robert Downey Jr's version of Sherlock Holmes good too? Yep. Now as far as BBC's version goes, to me, YES it does eerily strike a true resonnance to Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes but ported in a clever way into today's world. As for Robert Downey Jr's version.. well.. it embodies the spirit of Holmes but, the characters have been greatly retooled and adapted. It's not Conan Doyle's Holmes, but it is still a good, solid entertaining movie.